19 FLRA No. 75
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL R5-168
Union
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
HEADQUARTERS 5th INFANTRY
DIVISION AND FORT POLK, LOUISIANA
Agency
Case No. O-NG-1010
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
The petition for review in this case comes before the Federal Labor
Relations Authority (the Authority) pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute),
and presents an issue concerning the negotiability of the following
Union proposal:
Pursuant to Army regulations civilian employees may use Morale
Support Activities Facilities on a space available basis.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.
The Union's proposal concerns civilian employee use of the Agency's
recreational facilities as provided for by Army regulations. /1/
In this regard, the duty to bargain under the Statute extends only to
"conditions of employment," i.e., personnel policies, practices, and
matters affecting working conditions. /2/ In construing that statutory
phrase, the Authority has found proposals which concern matters directly
affecting "the work situation and employment relationship" of bargaining
unit employees to be within the duty to bargain. E.g., National
Treasury Employees Union and Internal Revenue Service, 3 FLRA 693
(1980). See also American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
and Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio,
2 FLRA 604, 606 (1980), enforced as to other matters sub nom. Department
of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 659 F.2d 1140 (D.C.
Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom. AFGE v. FLRA, 455 U.S. 945 (1982).
Conversely, proposals which relate to activities of employees involved
in non-work activities while in a non-duty status, such as proposals
concerning employee access to agency recreation facilities, have been
determined to be outside the duty to bargain because they do not concern
matters which are conditions of employment. American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 225 and U.S. Army Armament Research and
Development Command, Dover, New Jersey, 11 FLRA 630 (1983);
International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, CLC, Local F-116
and Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California,
7 FLRA 123 (1981).
The Union does not dispute that employee access to the subject
recreation facilities in this case would relate to activities of
employees involved in non-work activities while in a non-duty status.
Rather, the Union contends that it "is not attempting to negotiate which
if any facilities may be used by civilian employees, but, merely (to)
advise unit employees that such facilities may be available and used as
governed by Army regulations." /3/ As to such regulations, however, no
claim is made that they implement an Agency policy requiring, as a
precondition to the employment relationship itself, the provision of
essential facilities and services so as to ensure reasonable standards
of health decency for unit employees. /4/ Thus, the Agency having
regulated access to its recreation facilities in this case does not
alter the fact that based on U.S. Armament Research and Development
Command and Vandenberg Air Force Base, matters related to such access do
not directly affect conditions of employment of bargaining unit
employees and are outside the duty to bargain.
Consequently, while the Union in this case may have intended only to
inform employees of the existence of regulations governing employee
access to Agency recreation facilities, adoption of the disputed
proposal expressly concerns matters not directly related to conditions
of employment of unit employees within the meaning of section
7103(a)(14) of the Statute and is outside the duty to bargain.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review be, and it
hereby is, dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C., August 12, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Army regulation AR 28-1 and Fort Polk Policy Issuance No. 85
provide that while the Agency's Morale Support Activities Facilities are
primarily intended for use by military personnel, civilian employees may
utilize these facilities in accordance with an established priority
system on a space available basis.
/2/ Section 7103(a)(14).
/3/ Union Reply Brief at 2.
/4/ See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1363 and
Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea, 4 FLRA 139 (1980),
enforced sub nom. Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations
Authority, 685 F.2d 641 (1982), (matter of ration control governed by
regulation is a condition of employment of unit employees in overseas
command since it is directly related to reasonable standards of health
and decency for unit emp